Why do liberals act like they can't live without contraception and abortions?

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by George Stegmeir
The answer is quite simple. All you have to do is look at European and
American society before “THE PILL”. Without contreception and abortion on demand, liberals would have to give up indiscriminate sexual intercours whenever they want it because women would be too afraid of getting pregnant.
In addition, considering who gets most abortions in the US, without abortion on demand, the caucasian population in the US would be in the minority within 25 years. The tacit fact that liberals don’t talk about and couldn’t abide if it happened.

Based on what?

This is why the thread should be closed, its just an opportunity for people to throw out random generalities which end up being kind of offensive. Its not getting anywhere discussion-wise and is just being divisive and uncharitable. Anyone else with me on this?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Most of the ones who get abortions use contraception. That’s why the ones who use contraception are the same ones that insist that they can’t go without abortions.

Based on what?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

People are far less rational about sex than you seem to think. In any case,** is it reasonable to think that women ought to be as free to have sex as man?** I recall something my psychology teacher told our class way back in the mid’50s. * A man loves with his penis; a woman with her whole body. *Her whole rhythm is built around her “periods.” She is made to create life, sand to nurture it through a long pregnancy, and then many years after birth. Of course she is not absolutely required to do this. She can choose to be single, choose even in the context of a
“marriage,” But her sexual yearnings are still based on what her body tells us. And it will not tell her what a man’s body tells him.

What do you think would be a reasonable alternative then?
Are you actually saying women should be happy having less freedom than men?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Its selfish because it allows you to put your sexual gratification before all else, including the person (who becomes an object) that youre having sex with i.e. allows you to use them. It allows you to do as you like and bypass the consequences of your actions. As you can see, everythig is centered around you.

Why assume the theoretical lover wants to have kids either?
That’s a big assumption.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

While joblessness and homelessness is at record highs all the left cares about is providing more contraception and abortions and forcing everyone to pay for it.

HOW would adding more (for the most part unwanted) babies into the mix help with that?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

^

**Man is naturally religous. If his journey does not end in him coming to God, he creates gods for himself. **In the case of someone using birth control, the god is convience and a denial of responsibility and consequences of actions.

In other words, if the evidence does not support my theory, I will just rationalize the actual results as proving me right

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by livingwordunity
I’m conservative, and I don’t smoke. I also wouldn’t care if they banned smoking. And I’ve met many liberals who are smokers. So your stereotype for conservatives just doesn’t stick.

Politics and greed are driving the “debate”. The pill industry would lose millions or billions of dollars a year if word got out that it causes cancer. The multi-billion dollar porn industry is also using their money to make sure that contraception and abortions are promoted since they need it to support their human sex trafficking business which is modern day slavery.

They are slaves without realizing it. Just as an alcoholic or drug addict is a slave, even though they voluntarily consent to drinking or doing drugs.

That’s not proof.
Merely another unsupported claim.
Moreover, my question was addressed to livingwordunity.

 

[livingwordunity]

Most of the ones who get abortions use contraception. That’s why the ones who use contraception are the same ones that insist that they can’t go without abortions.

Based on what?

Most of the ones who get abortions use contraception. That’s why the ones who use contraception are the same ones that insist that they can’t go without abortions.

 

[livingwordunity]

My wife is conservative, has never used contraception, and was a virgin when we got married. That destroys the liberal claim that all women use contraception and can’t live without abortions.

No one claimed ALL women use contraception.
Your responding to something you claimed.
In other words…you are debating yourself

Since liberals claim that contraception/abortions must be mandated to all women, the assumption behind that is that all women use it. My wife is one example that I know of that proves that assumption wrong.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Why assume the theoretical lover wants to have kids either?
That’s a big assumption.

The saying “want your cake and eat it too” pretty much describes contraceptive sex.

Not wanting the responsibility (children) and still wanting only the pleasure displays total selfishness, on both lovers’ parts. It shows they just care that their sexual urges are met, using one another, merely for gratification.

Because if a couple does not want children they should not be having sex. But of course since their only concerns are centered around the self, that isnt going to happen. Wouldnt you agree? (That most couples would not see that as a realistic option for themselves)

 

[neophyte]

…Being able to choose when to have a child, and not live in fear of accidental pregnancy,…

What the heck is an “accidental pregnancy”? You can fall off a chair by accident, or slip on a banana by accident, or cut your finger by accident.

If you step on the gas pedal of a car and it goes forward, you aren’t surprised because going forward is the natural result of stepping on the gas. Pregnancy is the natural result of having sex, it means something went right. It’s not an accident.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by livingwordunity
Most of the ones who get abortions use contraception. That’s why the ones who use contraception are the same ones that insist that they can’t go without abortions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Based on what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by livingwordunity
Most of the ones who get abortions use contraception. That’s why the ones who use contraception are the same ones that insist that they can’t go without abortions.

livingwordunity:
Repeating the same baseless comments…
Not much of an answer

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Since liberals claim that contraception/abortions must be mandated to all women,** the assumption behind that is that all women use it.** My wife is one example that I know of that proves that assumption wrong.

NO ONE is making that assumption but you livingwordunity.

 

[Rence]

What the heck is an “accidental pregnancy”? .

An accidental pregnancy is an unintended pregnancy by the use of some kind of artificial contraception or by NFP. It’s called “accidental” because the plan was not to get pregnant at the time.

 

[Rence]

Since liberals claim that contraception/abortions must be mandated to all women, the assumption behind that is that all women use it. My wife is one example that I know of that proves that assumption wrong.

I have always had contraceptive coverage in my insurance plans. But I’ve never had to use them. Some would say it’s always better to have more benefits than less, and the member can use or not use the benefits according to their needs. Like, diabetes medications and interventions are included in standard plans, but the hope is that with better preventative services, one may never need them. But they are there if one needs them

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why assume the theoretical lover wants to have kids either?
That’s a big assumption.

The saying “want your cake and eat it too” pretty much describes contraceptive sex.

Not wanting the responsibility (children) and still wanting only the pleasure displays total selfishness, on both lovers’ parts. It shows they just care that their sexual urges are met, using one another, merely for gratification.

Because if a couple does not want children they should not be having sex. But of course since their only concerns are centered around the self, that isnt going to happen. Wouldnt you agree? (That most couples would not see that as a realistic option for themselves)

You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding sex.
There are plenty of reasons to have sex other than your own pleasure or the desire for children.

Such as:
-To bond with and/or influence a lover.
-To make somebody feel better.
-To manipulate someone into doing what you want.
-To make money.
-To make somebody else jealous.
-In order to appease somebody more powerful.

And many many other reasons.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why assume the theoretical lover wants to have kids either?
That’s a big assumption.

You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding sex.
There are plenty of reasons to have sex other than your own pleasure or the desire for children.

Such as:
-To bond with and/or influence a lover.
-To make somebody feel better.
-To manipulate someone into doing what you want.
-To make money.
-To make somebody else jealous.
-In order to appease somebody more powerful.

And many many other reasons.

That’s right. Some people are perplexed by the notion that one would want to get married and/or have sex without wanting children. But others may be perplexed by the insistence that the two have to go together. MANY people want to get married and engage in the marital embrace for the above reasons and see nothing wrong with it. I was raised to believe it was never wrong to engage in the marital embrace, and that didn’t always mean a kid a year or every two years. That’s just not the way people think anymore. The life expectancy of people is much higher, and the child’s life expectancy has improved very greatly since the days when it was common to have a baker’s dozen of kids.

 

[neophyte]

An accidental pregnancy is an unintended pregnancy by the use of some kind of artificial contraception or by NFP. It’s called “accidental” because the plan was not to get pregnant at the time.

That’s like laying your hand down on a table and swinging an ax at it, and saying that you accidentally cut your fingers off. Or putting sperm and an egg together in a petri dish and saying you accidentally ended up with a zygote.

It’s not an accident. It’s of the substance of the act. The purpose of sex is babies and bonding. By definition, a pregnancy that results from sexual intercourse is not an accident.

 

[holyrood]

Plus, white parents don’t want to adopt black kids.

Asian kids- OK. Hispanic kids- yeah alright. Black kids- OOOHHH no, sorry.

Sorry if I’m coming late to the party and others have already said it, but this is simply not true. I personally know several white families who have adopted black children. I’d adopt any child in a heart beat if I could, no questions asked about skin color.

This is simply not true.

 

[holyrood]

Exactly. YOU see it as murder, being guided by your religious values; but not every religion sees it as such in all cases: for example, Judaism, Quakerism, perhaps Hinduism. YOU most likely see contraception as immoral in all cases; Judaism makes distinctions. We live in a pluralistic society in America, with many different religious beliefs concerning several hot-button social and political issues.

Where, then, do we draw the line? Couldn’t we say most acts forbidden by law are people’s opinions of what’s right and wrong guided by religious values?

To my knowledge, every religion views murder as wrong. Murder is the killing of an innocent human being, and there is clearly another, separate, individual human being involved in this matter. That’s a biological fact, not a religious opinion. That it ends up dead as the result of direct intention to kill is a fact, not a religious view.

I certainly understand that the Supreme Court has decided these particular human beings are not ‘persons,’ but I find it ironic that we, as a people, deplore previous ages that regarded certain human beings as ‘not people,’ while we ourselves do the very same thing.